Logs for jdev

Show join/part/nick changes: [05:05:35] * Zash left the chat.[05:07:06] * bear left the chat.[05:19:52] * Treebilou left the chat.[05:35:12] * teo1 left the chat.[05:36:54] * ermine left the chat.[05:58:58] * teo1 joined the chat.[06:03:22] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.[06:19:02] * Treebilou joined the chat.[06:19:03] * smoku left the chat.[06:19:53] * Treebilou left the chat.[06:19:55] * Treebilou joined the chat.[06:39:54] * Treebilou left the chat.[06:40:17] * Treebilou joined the chat.[06:40:54] * Treebilou left the chat.[06:41:00] * Treebilou joined the chat.[06:58:18] * justin left the chat.[07:24:07] * nabatt joined the chat.[07:28:12] * johnny left the chat.[07:28:25] * Treebilou left the chat.[07:32:22] * Tobias joined the chat.[07:46:39] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.[08:09:54] * johnny joined the chat.[08:20:33] * petermount joined the chat.[08:37:09] * smoku joined the chat.[08:38:28] * Kev left the chat.[08:39:26] * Kev joined the chat.[08:40:53] * Alex joined the chat.[08:55:08] * Treebilou joined the chat.[09:04:44] <Alex> anybody here familiar with the collecta XMPP api?[09:25:01] * gnufs joined the chat.[09:27:20] * julm joined the chat.[09:29:48] * julm left the chat.[09:31:00] * gnufs left the chat.[09:31:43] * gnufs joined the chat.[09:34:43] * gnufs left the chat.[09:35:20] * gnufs joined the chat.[09:39:39] * Tobias left the chat.[09:40:20] * gnufs left the chat.[09:40:37] * gnufs joined the chat.[09:46:07] * gnufs left the chat.[09:46:23] * gnufs joined the chat.[09:53:23] * gnufs left the chat.[09:53:48] * gnufs joined the chat.[09:56:48] * gnufs left the chat.[09:57:05] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:01:35] * gnufs left the chat.[10:02:13] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:23:30] * gnufs left the chat.[10:23:33] * johnny left the chat.[10:27:21] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:30:22] * gnufs left the chat.[10:30:49] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:33:49] * gnufs left the chat.[10:34:20] * johnny joined the chat.[10:34:26] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:37:56] * gnufs left the chat.[10:38:00] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:43:00] * gnufs left the chat.[10:43:24] * gnufs joined the chat.[10:47:54] * gnufs left the chat.[10:48:44] * gnufs joined the chat.[11:03:49] * ali joined the chat.[11:09:04] * gnufs left the chat.[11:11:19] * ali left the chat.[11:11:33] * ali joined the chat.[11:21:33] * ali left the chat.[11:21:56] * ermine joined the chat.[11:22:20] * ali joined the chat.[11:27:20] * ali left the chat.[11:28:20] * ali joined the chat.[11:28:50] * smoku left the chat.[11:28:51] * smoku joined the chat.[11:48:50] * ali left the chat.[11:51:47] * ali joined the chat.[11:54:47] * ali left the chat.[11:55:16] * ali joined the chat.[11:59:46] * ali left the chat.[12:00:06] * ali joined the chat.[12:01:58] * Neustradamus left the chat.[12:04:06] * ali left the chat.[12:05:00] * ali joined the chat.[12:07:30] * ali left the chat.[12:07:48] * ali joined the chat.[12:14:03] * whatever left the chat.[12:25:02] * ali left the chat.[12:25:14] * ali joined the chat.[12:29:14] * ali left the chat.[12:29:58] * ali joined the chat.[12:42:10] * Kanchil joined the chat.[12:43:58] * ali left the chat.[12:44:54] * ali joined the chat.[12:48:54] * ali left the chat.[12:49:14] * ali joined the chat.[12:51:01] * Neustradamus joined the chat.[12:54:14] * ali left the chat.[12:55:11] * ali joined the chat.[12:56:36] * Florob joined the chat.[13:01:05] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.[13:03:27] * Lance joined the chat.[13:04:29] * MattJ joined the chat.[13:09:23] * lolo joined the chat.[13:13:28] * ali left the chat.[13:15:46] * teo1 left the chat.[13:16:33] * ali joined the chat.[13:16:35] * teo1 joined the chat.[13:21:33] * ali left the chat.[13:22:17] * ali joined the chat.[13:22:31] <louiz’> Is there any way to read the reason Why XMPP uses XML. Any technical discussion to make this decision or whatever?[13:22:50] <louiz’> why XML and not something else?[13:23:38] <Kev> That dates back to 1999, and I don't know that there's likely to be a public record of it.[13:24:47] * ali left the chat.[13:24:53] <louiz’> Ok. But any summary anywhere?[13:24:54] * Alex left the chat.[13:24:57] <louiz’> In your memory maybe? :D[13:24:58] * ali joined the chat.[13:25:06] <Kev> I've not been around that far.[13:25:12] <louiz’> :([13:25:15] <Kev> I didn't start using Jabber until 2001.[13:25:18] <Kev> That far? That long.[13:26:09] <smoku> louiz’, you have to ask Jeremie Miller - creator of jabber protocol.[13:27:58] * ali left the chat.[13:28:08] <MattJ> There used to be an FAQ entry on the site[13:28:17] * ali joined the chat.[13:28:30] <MattJ> It basically said "There's no point in changing now"[13:28:39] <MattJ> Which sounds like a stpeter-ism :)[13:28:55] <louiz’> on THE site ?[13:28:57] <louiz’> jabber.org ?[13:30:40] <MattJ> Yes[13:31:10] <dwd> louiz’, I do know it didn't originally use namespaces - apparently those got added largely retrospectively.[13:31:14] <louiz’> can't find anything about that in the FAQ[13:31:17] * ali left the chat.[13:31:26] <MattJ> louiz’, "There used to be"[13:31:37] * ali joined the chat.[13:31:38] <louiz’> ok ;)[13:31:43] <dwd> MattJ, That doesn't explicitly state that there isn't now.[13:31:54] <MattJ> True, but the site is about the IM service now :)[13:32:02] <MattJ> The old old site was static pages[13:32:14] <dwd> MattJ, Maybe we should have an xmpp.org FAQ.[13:32:22] <MattJ> Possibly, yes[13:33:00] <dwd> "Why does XMPP use a slightly braindamaged subset of XML?" "For precisely the same reasons that IMAP sues a slightly brain
damaged subset of LISP syntax."[13:34:07] <dwd> I'm sure that would silence people, if only for the innate threat of switching syntaxes from XML to LISP.[13:34:37] * ali left the chat.[13:34:58] <dwd> (FYI, the IMAP syntax was cleaned up for ACAP, which as a result is less brain-damaged, but also less LISPy)[13:35:32] * ali joined the chat.[13:35:41] <dwd> (And equally FYI, we've been trying to make XMPP closer to "true" XML for a while. I'm never wholly convinced this is a good
idea...)[13:36:43] <Kev> I don't dislike LISP.[13:36:52] <Kev> Although I remember much less than I used to.[13:37:10] * bear joined the chat.[13:38:31] * ali left the chat.[13:38:45] <dwd> Kev, Trauma does that to you.[13:39:04] * ali joined the chat.[13:50:26] * Florob left the chat.[13:51:05] * ali left the chat.[13:51:42] * ali joined the chat.[13:55:48] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.[14:09:31] * ali left the chat.[14:12:31] * Lance left the chat.[14:16:31] * scippio_netbook joined the chat.[14:16:37] * lance joined the chat.[14:16:41] * lance left the chat.[14:16:53] * lance joined the chat.[14:16:53] * lance left the chat.[14:16:55] * lance joined the chat.[14:16:55] * lance left the chat.[14:21:11] * ali joined the chat.[14:21:56] * lance joined the chat.[14:25:35] * teo1 left the chat.[14:29:11] * ali left the chat.[14:29:29] * ali joined the chat.[14:30:02] * lolo left the chat.[14:33:44] * ali left the chat.[14:35:15] * Tobias joined the chat.[14:39:10] * nabatt left the chat.[14:55:29] * smoku left the chat.[15:05:22] * Zash joined the chat.[15:11:02] * mlundblad_laptop left the chat.[15:22:13] * hawke joined the chat.[15:23:30] * teo1 joined the chat.[15:24:01] * teo1 left the chat.[15:24:21] * teo1 joined the chat.[16:37:38] * smoku joined the chat.[16:38:33] * smoku left the chat.[16:38:37] * smoku joined the chat.[16:52:17] * Tobias left the chat.[17:04:18] * jkhii joined the chat.[17:08:42] * petermount left the chat.[17:08:45] * deryni left the chat.[17:08:45] * deryni joined the chat.[17:30:10] * Tobias joined the chat.[17:32:10] * lance left the chat.[17:53:30] * Tobias left the chat.[17:59:33] * Tobias joined the chat.[18:06:11] * evilotto joined the chat.[18:08:12] * justin joined the chat.[18:13:16] <justin> awhile back i asked if '@' was allowed in resources. and i think we determined that user@example.com/user@example.com is
a valid jid[18:13:46] <justin> however, is example.com/user@example.com a valid jid? i think this may depend on search order of '@' and '/'[18:14:36] <MattJ> Yes, it's valid[18:15:20] <MattJ> That said, it's a corner-case someone found in Prosody's JID parsing not long ago :)[18:15:24] <MattJ> Hopefully the last[18:15:46] <justin> is this clear in the spec somewhere?[18:16:43] <Kev> Should be.[18:17:13] <MattJ> / isn't valid in the node, so there's no way it can be confused[18:19:07] <justin> sure, but it is just not very obvious. i imagine most code does a jidString.indexOf('@') to find the node[18:19:29] <justin> in which case "example.com/user" becomes the node, and it is determined to be invalid and rejected[18:19:48] <MattJ> Most code is wrong ;)[18:20:38] <Kev> indexOf('/') is the right thing to do, to strip any resource, and then indexof('@') to split a node off the bare JID.[18:26:32] <justin> hmm, yes, i guess so. and it seems psi even parses that way already. cool. i wonder who did that[18:26:52] <Kev> Not me, I rather imagine :)[18:27:09] <justin> i still think this should be clarified in the spec. it's an easy mistake to make[18:28:23] <Kev> I read the spec recently and thought it was reasonably clear - which bit do you think needs clarification?[18:32:08] * Neustradamus left the chat.[18:36:15] <justin> maybe something like: "Implementation note: since @ is an allowed character in the resource, it is important to not mistake
the JID "example.com/a@b" as having a node of "example.com/a" with no resource when in fact the JID has no node and the resource
is "a@b". In general this means that the resource in the JID should be searched for before the node."[18:37:37] <Zash> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-address-05[18:39:40] <justin> from the draft:
The '@' character is allowed in the resourcepart, and is often
used in the "nick" shown in XMPP chatrooms. For example, the JID
<room@chat.example.com/user@host> describes an entity who is an
occupant of the room <room@chat.example.com> with an (asserted)
nick of <user@host>. However, chatroom services do not
necessarily check such an asserted nick against the occupant's
real JID.[18:40:17] <justin> it's a start[18:42:02] <justin> Implementation Note: When dividing a JID into its component parts,
an implementation needs to match the separator characters '@' and
'/' before applying any transformation algorithms, which might
decompose certain Unicode code points to the separator characters
(e.g., U+FE6B SMALL COMMERCIAL AT might decompose into U+0040
COMMERCIAL AT).[18:43:36] <Zash> ﹫@[18:44:04] <MattJ> "Muahahahhaa....", etc.[18:49:49] * Neustradamus joined the chat.[19:05:37] * ermine left the chat.[19:36:04] <dwd> Evening all.[19:36:19] <Zash> yo[19:38:19] <dwd> I'm right in thinking there's no generic timestamp XEP, right?[19:38:44] <Zash> There's two?[19:38:52] <Zash> !xep time[19:38:53] <dwd> I mean, we've got delay, and we've got whichever-xep-it-is-that-points-to-RFC3339, but there's no XEP to say "I sent this
at X o'clock"[19:38:53] <Kanchil> Zash: Multiple matches: XEP-0090: Legacy Entity Time, XEP-0202: Entity Time, XEP-0082: XMPP Date and Time Profiles, XEP-0149:
Time Periods[19:39:32] <Zash> !xep 202[19:39:32] <Kanchil> Zash: XEP-0202: Entity Time is Standards Track (Final, 2009-09-11) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0202.html[19:39:41] <Zash> hm, no[19:40:08] <Zash> !xep stamp[19:40:08] <Kanchil> Zash: Sorry, I couldn't find a match[19:40:11] <dwd> What I want is a <delay/> that doesn't semantically mean a delay at all.[19:41:00] <Zash> !xep 203[19:41:00] <Kanchil> Zash: XEP-0203: Delayed Delivery is Standards Track (Final, 2009-09-15) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0203.html[19:41:29] <justin> i think using ISO time is probably fine[19:41:59] <dwd> justin, Oh, sure. I mean, any timestamp included would be a [xep 202] one. I'm just after a generic wodge of XML to put it
in.[19:41:59] <Kanchil> dwd: XEP-0202: Entity Time is Standards Track (Final, 2009-09-11) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0202.html[19:42:17] * scippio_netbook left the chat.[19:42:19] * deryni left the chat.[19:42:33] <dwd> justin, It's mostly for things like [xep 285] and similar - so that replay attacks are somewhat mitigated.[19:42:33] <Kanchil> dwd: XEP-0285: Digital Signatures in XMPP is Standards Track (Experimental, 2010-09-15) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0285.html[19:42:54] <dwd> Kanchil, Oh, well done. DOes this mean you know what [xep 288] is now?[19:42:54] <Kanchil> dwd: XEP-0288: Bidirectional Server-to-Server Connections is Standards Track (Experimental, 2010-10-04) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0288.html[19:42:57] <justin> dwd: yeah, i guess my feeling is we don't really need a generic timestamp element[19:42:59] <dwd> Kanchil, CLever lad.[19:43:17] <justin> i'm happy enough knowing that we use the same timestamp formatting anywhere a timestamp is needed[19:43:42] <dwd> justin, We've been asked for one by a couple of people, now, plus 285 (and probably the encryption I-D) need it.[19:44:06] <justin> hmm, but isn't this sort of like asking for XML to represent a JID?[19:44:08] <Zash> Break 203 into two xeps?[19:44:14] <justin> just put the damn jid in there however you want[19:45:05] <dwd> justin, No, not really. The XML blob has a defined semantic beyond the timestamp, after all.[19:45:31] <justin> is the idea that one should be able to generically locate timestamps within a stanza?[19:46:49] <Zash> Shouldn't the timestamp be *in the signature*?[19:47:05] <Zash> or, on the signed data side[19:47:31] <dwd> Zash, Yes, that's how XEP-0285 currently works.[19:47:33] <justin> Zash: of course, but that's not really the point[19:48:11] * scippio_netbook joined the chat.[19:49:37] <justin> dwd: maybe the problem is just that <delay> is named such :)[19:50:04] <dwd> justin, Possibly.[19:50:21] <dwd> justin, Although a TTL might be nice, if we were rolling out an element anyway.[19:50:41] <justin> yes[19:50:56] <dwd> justin, Hence "I sent this message at X. If you haven't received it by X+Y, then ignore it"[19:51:02] <Zash> So, spilit 203 into two xeps, one with <time xmlns="something:timestamp" stamp="%FT%T%Z"/> and one <delay xmlns=".."><time/></delay>[19:51:42] <dwd> Zash, Hmmm... WHat is it you do for a living? It's not selling forklifts, is it? ;-)[19:51:53] <dwd> Zash, Seriously, <delay/> is set in stone, and that's fine.[19:52:15] <Zash> dwd: What you say? You need forklift? Special price, just for you! ;)[19:52:35] <MattJ> dwd, isn't that AMP?[19:52:38] <dwd> Zash, Changing it entirely at this stage would be "interesting". We still generate two <delay/> tags for MUC, one of each
flavour. I don't want to do three. :-)[19:52:46] <dwd> MattJ, Except deployable.[19:52:49] <MattJ> :)[19:52:59] <MattJ> dwd, but Tiga... never mind[19:53:23] <justin> heh, this thing is still in the inbox: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/secure.html[19:53:49] <MattJ> :)[19:53:50] <justin> section 5 is maybe interesting for reference[19:54:34] <Zash> Mmmm.. Base64[19:57:47] <dwd> /me saunters off for food.[20:04:09] <Kev> I think it's 203 we want, incidentally.[20:04:22] <MattJ> !xep 203[20:04:23] <Kanchil> MattJ: XEP-0203: Delayed Delivery is Standards Track (Final, 2009-09-15) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0203.html[20:04:25] <MattJ> +1[20:04:33] <MattJ> !xep 202[20:04:33] <Kanchil> MattJ: XEP-0202: Entity Time is Standards Track (Final, 2009-09-11) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0202.html[20:04:35] <Kev> 203 is used to say "At the time I first saw this stanza, it was ..."[20:04:39] <MattJ> Ah, that's why I was confused[20:04:49] <Kev> If that's stamped by the sender, it's the original sendtime.[20:04:53] <MattJ> Agreed[20:05:16] <MattJ> Otherwise the lack of a stamp implies it was sent close enough to "now" that you shouldn't care[20:07:16] * Zash left the chat.[20:07:27] * Zash joined the chat.[20:38:11] * Lance joined the chat.[20:46:56] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.[20:53:44] * johnny left the chat.[20:56:40] * hawke left the chat.[20:57:21] * hawke joined the chat.[21:02:36] * Tobias left the chat.[21:16:25] * johnny joined the chat.[21:24:20] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.[21:42:33] * jcea joined the chat.[21:44:46] * Lance left the chat.[21:45:06] * Lance joined the chat.[22:01:23] * gnufs joined the chat.[22:01:30] * gnufs left the chat.[22:19:33] * Lance left the chat.[22:20:03] * Lance joined the chat.[22:40:05] * johnny left the chat.[22:43:43] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.[23:16:42] * santimoronho joined the chat.[23:18:22] * santimoronho left the chat.[23:23:51] * hawke left the chat.[00:11:24] * jkhii left the chat.[00:16:11] * justin left the chat.[00:27:02] * jkhii joined the chat.[00:42:06] * evilotto left the chat.[00:46:11] * gnufs joined the chat.[00:46:24] * gnufs left the chat.[00:52:34] <Zash> Gah, reading openssl docs makes me more confused :([00:55:50] <MattJ> Tip: Don't read OpenSSL docs[00:56:05] <MattJ> They're either not there, outdated, or just Wrong[01:03:18] <Zash> :/[01:06:21] * jcea left the chat.[01:09:33] <MattJ> !version jabber.ohloh.net[01:09:34] <Kanchil> MattJ: jabber.ohloh.net is running ejabberd version 2.0.5 on unix/linux 2.6.18[01:09:50] <MattJ> /me slaps Kanchil[01:09:52] <MattJ> You're not HAL[01:11:57] <Zash> :O[01:12:10] <Zash> Don't hurt the little one![01:13:34] * bear left the chat.[01:13:48] * bear joined the chat.[01:15:20] <Zash> Does web people misuse CN in certs or what?[01:36:52] * Neustradamus left the chat.[01:37:37] * Neustradamus joined the chat.[02:11:03] * MattJ left the chat.[02:15:23] * Lance left the chat.[04:18:41] * jkhii left the chat.[04:27:25] * Zash left the chat.[04:34:00] * johnny joined the chat.